御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.8.3

1.8.3

法皆是假。 不唯立性。 復非皆相說出世部。 世間非實。 皆虛妄故。 出世可實。 非虛妄故。 凡此等類。 四內何收。 又復小乘二十部。 計宗類不同。 計法各殊。 豈唯性相故分四宗。 未為准的。 又有法師立三宗義。 一法相宗。 二破相宗。 三法性宗。 謂深密佛地等經。 瑜伽等論。 皆法相宗。 依三性門。 建立諸法。 為究竟故。 大般若等經。 智度。 中。 百等論。 皆破相宗。 依勝義門。 破遣諸法。 為究竟故。 花嚴。 涅槃。 楞伽等經。 寶性。 起信等論。 皆法性宗。 彼依法性如來藏門。 融會諸法。 為究竟故。 乃至立一味之理。 非言不顯。 顯理之言。 不能稱實。 由斯皆隨空有等邊始自諸佛。 下至凡夫。 所設言教。 無有異也。 是故諸教有此三別者。 法師所雄名絕代。 英識邁時。 學富五乘。 理高于葉。 艤惠舟於法海。 桂掉翻波。 揮智劍於義山霜鋒切玉。 判斯宗旨。 誠可軌摸。 有所未明。 聊為質問。 何者。 法雖離言。 本無名相。 然假詮召許得法體不爾聖教應非定量表蘊等法遮勝性等。 又諸凡夫盲無惠日說不稱法。 可墮諸邊。 諸佛聖智。 親證法體。 如其所證。 無倒宣說。 說空定空。 說有亦爾契會中道。 豈可同凡。 若不爾者。 如何得有稱教生解。 發真勝智而得解脫。 若以不稱實故。 隨所發言。 墮空有等。 是則應有八萬四千無量諸宗。 何唯有三。 又分三宗。 無教空說。 如何自意分判聖教。 又云。 法相存依圓破相被三性法或存破各為究竟樂。 了不了者。 便令教理。 遞相乖違。 亦違究竟一實中道。 以許佛說。 三種究竟。 猶豫多端。 若為證會。 又依深密。 佛自會釋諸說空教。 唯依遍計。 說諸法空。 如何可言。 破相宗中。 三性俱遣餘一一義。 有多妨礙。 略舉可知。 不能繁廣。 當知瑜伽補處宣說。 乃通解釋一切諸經。 勿謂但釋深密等教。 故彼論釋。 歸敬頌云。 此論殊勝若蓮花。 猶如寶藏如大海。 具顯諸乘廣大義。 善釋其文無有遺。 又云。 今說此論。 所因云何。 謂諸有情。 無始時來。 於一切法。 處中實相。 無知疑惑顛倒僻執。 乃至如來出世隨其所宜。 方便為說種種妙法。 處中實相。 令諸有情。 知一切法。 法如是如是空。 故非如是如是有。 故非空了達諸法非空非有。 遠離疑惑顛倒僻執。 修行滅障。 得三菩提。 證寂滅樂。 佛涅槃後。 魔事紛起。 部執竟興。 多著有見。 龍猛菩薩。 證極喜地。 採集大乘。 無相空教。 造中論等。 究暢真要。 除彼有見。 聖提婆等諸大論師。 造百論等。 弘闡大義。 由是眾生。 復著空見。 無著菩薩。 位登初地證法先定。 得大神通。 事大慈尊。 請說此論。 理無不窮。 事無不盡。 文無不釋。 義無不詮。 疑無不遣。 執無不破。 行無不修。 果無不證。 正為菩薩。 令於諸乘境行果等。 皆得善巧。 勤修大乘。 證大菩提。 廣為有情。 常無倒說。 兼為餘乘。 令依自法。 修自分行。 得自果證。 如是略說。 此論所由。 故知。 通釋一切聖教。 除空有見。 起處中行。 寧說瑜伽。 唯法相宗。 問。 豈不諸經。 多說法相。 或多破相。 或復融會。 寧不分宗。 答。 誰言諸教無此三義。 但說定判如是如是經與論。 彼彼宗攝。 即為不可。 皆不空故。 是故應說大乘如理。 隨何等經。 皆有法相。 破相融會。 雖有偏明一義多處。 理實此三不相捨離。 以辯法體除執會通義皆遍故。 問。 若爾何故。 於大乘中中宗邊宗。 清辨護法。 無相法相。 諸宗各別。 答。 但由釋者製作不同。 隨能釋意。 說宗有異。 非是佛語。 墮諸邊故。 先別立宗。

Phenomena are largely provisional, rather than solely establishing natures; nor is it entirely characteristics. The Lokottaravāda states that the mundane is not real, because it is all false and deceptive; the supramundane can be real, because it is not false and deceptive. In which of the four [schools] would such classes be included? Furthermore, the twenty Hīnayāna sects differ in their tenets and vary in the phenomena they posit; how could dividing them into four schools solely by nature and characteristic serve as an exact standard? Again, there is a Dharma Master who posits three schools: first, the School of Dharmalakṣaṇa; second, the School of Refuting Characteristics; third, the School of Dharmatā. He claims that sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and the Buddhabhūmi, and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi, are all the School of Dharmalakṣaṇa, because establishing all phenomena based on the approach of the three natures is taken as ultimate. Sūtras such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, and treatises such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Madhyamaka-śāstra, and the Śataka-śāstra, are all the School of Refuting Characteristics, because demolishing and eliminating all phenomena based on the approach of ultimate truth is taken as ultimate. Sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka, Nirvāṇa, and Laṅkāvatāra, and treatises such as the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Awakening of Faith, are all the School of Dharmatā, because harmonizing and unifying all phenomena based on the approach of the dharmatā-tathāgatagarbha is taken as ultimate. He further posits that the single flavor of principle cannot be revealed without words, yet words that reveal the principle cannot tally with reality; hence they all fall toward the extremes of emptiness, existence, and the like, from the Buddhas on high down to ordinary people, so that the verbal teachings they set forth do not differ. That the various teachings have these three distinctions [is his view]. That Dharma Master's preeminent fame was peerless across generations, his brilliant discernment surpassed the times, his learning was abundant in the five vehicles, and his principles were loftier than [those of Mount] Qiye. He moored the boat of wisdom in the ocean of Dharma, its cinnamon oars churning the waves; he wielded the sword of wisdom on the mountain of meaning, its frosty blade cleaving jade. In determining these doctrinal tenets, he could truly serve as a model. Yet where some points remain unclear, I venture to pose some questions. Why so? Although phenomena transcend speech and originally lack name and characteristic, provisional signifiers and designations are accepted as apprehending the entity of phenomena; otherwise, the sacred teachings would not be a valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa), indicating phenomena like the aggregates while precluding supreme natures and the like. Moreover, ordinary people are blind and lack the sun of wisdom, so their speech does not tally with phenomena and may fall into extremes. The sacred wisdom of the Buddhas directly realizes the entity of phenomena and, just as it is realized, unerringly proclaims it: when they speak of emptiness, it is definitely empty; when they speak of existence, it is likewise so, accordant and converging with the Middle Way. How could it be identical to ordinary beings? If it were not so, how could understanding arise in conformity with the teaching, producing true, supreme wisdom to attain liberation? If because speech does not tally with reality whatever utterance is made falls into emptiness, existence, and so forth, then there should be eighty-four thousand limitless schools; why only three? Furthermore, dividing into three schools lacks scriptural basis and is empty talk; how can one divide and categorize the sacred teachings by one's own intention? It is also said that Dharmalakṣaṇa preserves the paratantra and pariniṣpanna, while Refuting Characteristics refutes the three natures; phenomena are either preserved or refuted, each being ultimate joy. If one posits [some as] definitive and [others as] non-definitive, this causes teaching and principle to contradict each other, and also violates the ultimate, single real Middle Way. For by accepting that the Buddha taught three kinds of ultimates, vacillations would be manifold; how could they be verified and harmonized? Moreover, according to the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Buddha himself harmonized and explained the various teachings on emptiness as being spoken solely on the basis of parikalpita as the emptiness of all phenomena. How can it be said that in the School of Refuting Characteristics, all three natures are eliminated? The remaining points each contain many difficulties; mentioning them briefly suffices to know this, so I need not elaborate. One should know that the Yogācārabhūmi was proclaimed by the Bodhisattva of One More Birth (Maitreya) to explain all sūtras comprehensively; do not say that it only explains teachings such as the Saṃdhinirmocana. Therefore, the verse of homage in the commentary on that treatise says: / 'This treatise is sublime like a lotus, / Resembling a treasure trove and an ocean; / It fully reveals the vast meaning of the vehicles, / And skilfully explains their texts without omission.' / It also says: 'Now, what is the reason for expounding this treatise? It is that sentient beings from beginningless time have had ignorance, doubt, error, and perverse clinging regarding the Middle real characteristic of all phenomena. [...] Down to the Tathāgata appearing in the world, who, in accord with what was fitting, expediently taught various wonderful dharmas, the Middle real characteristic, causing sentient beings to know that all phenomena, being as such and as such empty, are therefore not as such and as such existent, and thus are not empty; thoroughly comprehending that all phenomena are neither empty nor existent, they depart from doubt, error, and perverse clinging, practice the cultivation that eradicates hindrances, attain the three bodhis, and realize the bliss of quiescence. After the Buddha's nirvāṇa, demonic affairs arose in turmoil, sectarian clingings competed and flourished, and many attached to the view of existence. Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna realized the pramuditā-bhūmi, gathered the Mahāyāna teaching of signless emptiness, and composed the Madhyamaka-śāstra and others, thoroughly elucidating the true essentials to eliminate those views of existence. The great treatise masters such as holy Āryadeva composed the Śataka-śāstra and others, broadly expounding the great meaning. Because of this, sentient beings again attached to the view of emptiness. Bodhisattva Asaṅga, having ascended to the first bhūmi and realized the prior samādhi of Dharma, attained great supernatural powers, served the Great Merciful One (Maitreya), and requested the expounding of this treatise. There is no principle it does not exhaust, no phenomenon it does not fully encompass, no text it does not explain, no meaning it does not express, no doubt it does not dispel, no clinging it does not shatter, no practice it does not cultivate, and no fruit it does not realize. It is primarily for bodhisattvas, to enable them to gain skill in the objects, practices, and fruits of all the vehicles, diligently cultivate the Mahāyāna, realize great bodhi, and constantly and unerringly preach it broadly for sentient beings; secondarily, it is for the other vehicles, to cause them to rely on their own Dharma, cultivate their own portions of practice, and attain their own realizations of fruit. Such is a brief explanation of the reason for this treatise.' / Hence we know that it comprehensively explains all sacred teachings, eliminates the views of emptiness and existence, and gives rise to Middle practice. How could one say that the Yogācārabhūmi is solely the School of Dharmalakṣaṇa? Question: Do not the various sūtras mostly teach dharmalakṣaṇa, or mostly refute characteristics, or again harmonize them? Why should schools not be divided? Answer: Who says the various teachings lack these three meanings? It is merely saying that definitively deciding that such-and-such sūtras and treatises are subsumed under such-and-such schools is untenable, because none are void [of the others]. Therefore, it should be said that according to principle in the Mahāyāna, whatever sūtra it may be, it possesses dharmalakṣaṇa, the refutation of characteristics, and harmonization. Although there are places where one meaning is predominantly illuminated, in reality these three do not separate from each other, because clarifying the entity of phenomena, removing attachments, and achieving harmony are meanings that are omnipresent. Question: If so, why within the Mahāyāna are there the Central School and the Peripheral School, Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla, signlessness and dharmalakṣaṇa, with each school distinct? Answer: This is merely due to the differing compositions of the commentators. In accordance with the intentions of the commentators, the tenets are stated differently; it is not that the Buddha's words fall into extremes so that distinct schools were established previously.